Re: [Possible PATCH] IO ops docs

2002-01-21 Thread Melvin Smith
At 12:54 PM 1/21/2002 +, Simon Glover wrote: > While you're online: now that you've split the io ops into their > own separate file, their documentation isn't going to core_ops.pod > any more. The enclosed patch fixes this by autogenerating io_ops.pod > in the same fashion that core_ops.p

Re: [Possible PATCH] IO ops docs

2002-01-21 Thread Simon Glover
If you decide to apply the last patch, you should probably apply this one as well, so that people know about the new file. If not, then junk 'em both. Simon --- parrot.pod.old Mon Jan 21 12:56:15 2002 +++ parrot.pod Mon Jan 21 12:57:11 2002 @@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ A description of the c

[Possible PATCH] IO ops docs

2002-01-21 Thread Simon Glover
While you're online: now that you've split the io ops into their own separate file, their documentation isn't going to core_ops.pod any more. The enclosed patch fixes this by autogenerating io_ops.pod in the same fashion that core_ops.pod is generated, but I'm not sure whether this is the r